The MSOP...

The MSOP...

Monday, December 31, 2012

HosPrisoner Decisions 12/30/2012

Exhibit 1:

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: David Leroy Gamble, Jr.
Affirmed. Judge Heidi S. Schellhas.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. James H. Clark, Jr.

I publicly stated in my blog post  a few days ago that as a Public Service I would publicly post the names of any/all MN District/Appellate Court Judges who continue to perpetrate the falsity that the MN SDP/SPP commitment statutes are constitutional. The Judicial Nullification of HosPrisoners in Minnesota must come to an end.  The tortured, flawed reasoning and analysis by PAID PUBLIC SERVANTS must be exposed.

These are "Decisions" that are policy based (Judicial Nullification re The Constitution & Law) rather than based on the constitution or law as the US Supreme Court has defined the law. This is the Judicial Nullification of MSOPrisoners that the Executive Branch (under Tim Pawlenty) & Legislature (Responsible for SDP & SPP "Acts"/Statutes) have been involved in also to date. Like my criminal appeals, the decisions are results driven, rather than analysis.

I have a protected, First Amendment right to caustically criticise government and I am choosing to exercise this right here. I'm alleging that these Judges have abdicated Justice for Politics, and I'm publicly calling for them to resign. Please step down from your lofty bench and let some up there that will apply the constitution and the law equally, fairly and in the interests of justice. These three people in their dark costume have done none of this in telling this HosPrisoner that despite the fact that his civil commitment "defense" attorney lied to him and the Ramsey County District Court took advantage of his not understanding he was "stipulating" [AGREEING] to a LIFE SENTENCE!

This is JUST ONE ISSUE this HosPrisoner appeals on only to have the indignity and injustice of these 3 people not doing anything right within the law, their powers to correct injustice----nothing matters as this guy has been labeled a sex offender, and then FALSELY LABELED AS AN SVP!


Well, what a case to begin our inquiry with as HosPrisoner David Gamble deservedly calls out the MN Courts in this outrageous decision in which the Minnesota Court of Appeals, staffed by Presiding Judge Ross, and joined by Judges Schellhas and Kirk inform HosPrisoner Gamble that he has nothing coming from the court in terms of equity, fair play or justice. Just more MN Judicial Nullification!

Note the injustice is unanimous, and also note that the HosPrisoner is hot on the trail of the constitutional infirmities and weaknesses that plague this untenable legal situation the State has led us all into. Gamble should Petition the MN S CT for Review, and then when they Deny (as part of the Judicial Nullification) appeal that, and so on and so forth until a court applies the law & releases him.

HosPrisoner Gamble's arguments will avail and carry the day. The only question really is when will that day be? Later in 2013, after the legislature finally legislates away the MSOP? Time will tell.
HosPrisoner Gamble's Arguments
In April 2011, Gamble moved the district court for relief from the judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, on the grounds of: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) violation of his right to due process because Ramsey County was "not compelled to show proof of [his] serious difficulty controlling sexual behavior," (3) violation of his right to due process because he was "coerced" into signing the stipulation for commitment, (4) violation of his right to due process because the stipulation for commitment failed to show that he suffered "from a recognizable Personality or Mental Disorder to justify a Sexual Disorder to warrant Civil Commitment," and (5) "unconstitutional" commitment because MSOP is a "failed program" and does "not withstand constitutional scrutiny . . . in light of the lack of treatment being provided." On September 16, the court denied Gamble’s motion in its entirety and, on October 12, denied his request for reconsideration. On December 8, Gamble noticed an appeal from the October 12 order. Because a request for reconsideration does not extend the time for taking an
appeal, this court denied Gamble’s appeal as untimely, and the supreme court 3

denied review.
In re Civil Commitment of Gamble, No. A11-2204 (Minn. App. Jan. 11, 2010) (order), review denied (Minn. Mar. 20, 2012).

On May 4, 2012, Gamble moved the district court for an order compelling his court-appointed attorney to release certain records to him. On the day that the court heard the motion, Gamble again moved the court under rule 60.02 for relief from the judgment
of commitment and also moved for an order appointing him a different attorney. In his second rule 60.02 motion, Gamble raised the same issues that he raised in his first rule 60.02 motion and other issues. Pertinent to this appeal, Gamble argued that his written stipulation for commitment contained "vague words and grammar" which led him to believe he had the option to withdraw from "the contract at any time," that an evidentiary hearing was necessary "to determine the reasonable terms of the contract and then enforce those terms," and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on newly discovered evidence regarding his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The district court summarily denied Gamble’s motion in its entirety, concluding that Gamble was collaterally estopped from raising the same issues in his second rule 60.02 motion that he raised in his first motion. The court denied Gamble’s newly raised issues on the basis that they lacked merit.

As for Gamble's first argument, obviously his civil commitment attorney was ineffective.

It is unethical and unprofessional for a "defense" attorney to enter a stipulation for a life sentence to an abusive Government Punishment Factory that is accountable to no one and who flagrantly violates the rights of  its involuntarily held HosPrisoner "clients".
Hennepin County Civil Commitment Defense Coordinator Douglas F. McGuire did this to a Severely Developmentally and Physically Disabled Vulnerable Adult named Orlando Lindgren. Between the Hennepin County District Court and "defense" attorney McGuire, they managed to trick and cajole poor HosPrisoner Lindgren into "stipulating" to his Life Sentence at the MSOP. I urge the media to assist me in locating Lindgren's relatives!

I will never forget how excited Orlando was after returning from Courts in 2006 or 2007 and exclaiming to me: "WHO HOO! I get to go home in two years! that's what my attorney Doug told me! I have to do treatment, and then I can go home in two years!!! Whoo hoo!!!"  I was the one who broke the news to Orlando: Thanks to Doug's "advocacy" and the Court's eagerness & willingness to accept a "stipulation" that was NOT KNOWING, VOLUNTARY, OR INTELLIGENT and assign a de facto illegal, unconstitutional life sentence amounting to Double Jeopardy, Ex Post Facto & numerous 8th and 14th Amendment Due Process Violations  this Christian man is NEVER going home! At least not alive anyway, as death is the only known MSOP completion. Shame on this system, shame!
I am asking the media to investigate Mr. Orlando Lindgren. I have asked attorney McGuire for records relating to the Hennepin County Commitment Defense Project, and Mr. McGuire's written response was that he is not my law clerk. McGuire refuses to share any info re Lindgren, explain why he has lost 5 of 6 SDP/SPP cases excluding mine, in which his advocacy wasn't much of a detriment to me with Attorney Jill Clark involved. Attorney Douglas F. McGuire also has refused to inform me which prisoners are on Judicial Hold Order Status, as Doug McGuire knows I can reach them in prison before it's too late for them and assist them with their defense, provided they want my help.

HosPrisoner David Gamble was denied justice and Due Process by these three judges in even just his initial argument! David Gamble had constitutionally inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel in his Sex Civil Commitment Case, and I allege that his SDP commitment is invalid, and he is entitled to a TRIAL BY JURY as to whether he meets the real commitment criteria (Hendricks/Crane)--not the fake MN SDP Act criteria a state psychologist who has "evaluated" many and determined that many meet the MN SDP statute and thus signed off on the Commitment...knowing that the HosPrisoner does not remotely meet the real  commitment criteria stated "You could drive a truck through that statute!"--meaning the illegal, unconstitutional SDP Act 100's are under.

And then this "doctor" is going to get up in arms with me insisting he hasn't done anything "unethical" sending men off to de facto life sentences with no volitional impairment. Sorry Doc, it is unethical and unprofessional what you have done and what you are doing, and you're not alone. You can justify it all day long to yourself, but that isn't going to fly with me, who has suffered for 15 years because of the abuses and violations of state public servants, who justified their illegal and violative behavior/conduct in the name of all that's good and Holy, and under the patently false pretense of "Public Safety".

This is exactly why there have been pleas from renowned forensic psychologists warning other psychologists to not act as an extension of the State/Prosecution and do not involve yourself in these cases where politics trump the law. Doc: FIRST: DO NO HARM!

These SDP/SPP civil commitments are making the HosPrisoners more dangerous by design. These Concentration Camps for Sex Offenders were INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED to make it impossible to staff with competent clinicians in the sticks where the State deliberately placed these "Programs": Moose Lake and Saint Peter as opposed to Lino Lakes,...a no brainer! DHS doesn't want these Hosprisoners in a metro area where they can keep clinicians and "Continuity" of Care/Abuse) as well as provide for a better therapeutic environment where visiting is much easier and phone calls less expensive as they are local and not LD rates. DHS: NO INTEREST IN TREATMENT!

My suggestions to solve even this one issue, which has been an excuse the State/Federal Courts have accepted for 20 years have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Twice I publicly testified that MCF-Lino Lakes would be an ideal. central location for all MSOP HosPrisoners. DHS has no interest in providing constitutionally adequate treatment to the HosPrisoners. This idea would've been implemented by now if the Minnesota Department of Human Services had "Treatment" as a priority!

I am still holding out some hope relating to this one idea of mine DHS and the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Task Force conveniently omitted in it's online version of my "Public Comments", as DOC Commissioner Tom Roy expressed some interest in this idea to me. I called Commissioner Roy at DOC Central Office a few weeks ago to follow-up, and I have not heard back from Mr. Roy yet. I have guarded optimism that Mr . Roy & I can fully discuss.

I raised 5 issues in the 2 minutes DHS/TF allowed me despite repeated requests to present information in any area they were to request they want education on for the 10 minutes Nancy Johnston, Mark Ostrem, John Kirwin, Bill Donnay & Doug McGuire were allowed.  With the possible exception of Mr Ostrem (who apparently has 35 HosPrisoners on his watch and counting) I allege these DHS sponsored presenters are Central figures that have caused and led to this crisis and are NOT part of the solution. McGuire tricked a mentally retarded & severely disabled Vulnerable Adult to a "Stipulation" to life/death in the MSOP.

HosPrisoner Gamble's second argument: (2) violation of his right to due process because Ramsey County was "not compelled to show proof of [his] serious difficulty controlling sexual behavior,"

HosPrisoner Gamble is on the money here as the statutes violate Due Process.

 (3) violation of his right to due process because he was "coerced" into signing the stipulation for commitment

HosPrisoner Gamble is spot on here as any "stipulation" to the MSOP violates Due Process.

 (4) violation of his right to due process because the stipulation for commitment failed to show that he suffered "from a recognizable Personality or Mental Disorder to justify a Sexual Disorder to warrant Civil Commitment,"

Right on, HosPrisoner Gamble! Now you are getting to the heart of the matter: The Fake SVP mental diagnosis by DOC/state doctors on the cash cow gravy train! HosPrisoner David Gamble has managed to figure all this out on his own (note he has had to abandon the notion of "defense" counsel in his case & roll pro se) despite the State of Minnesota alleging that he is  a"severely mentally disordered" sexual offender!

(5) "unconstitutional" commitment because MSOP is a "failed program" and does "not withstand constitutional scrutiny . . . in light of the lack of treatment being provided

Whatever part of this the state and federal courts are not understanding I hope to shed some light on as we move forward as a State...HosPrisoner and all.

Exhibit 2:

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Richard Thomas Martinez.
Affirmed. Judge John R. Rodenberg.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. J. Thomas Mott.

This case is interesting for a number of reasons. Here are this HosPrisoner's arguments:


In this civil commitment appeal, appellant argues that the district court should have accorded greater weight to the opinions of two of the five doctors who examined him during the course of the proceedings below. Because case law clearly mandates deference to the district court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we affirm. Appellant also raises two other issues on appeal. However, appellant raises these issues
without adequate argument or citation to authority, and has therefore waived consideration of those issues on appeal.

HosPrisoner Martinez appears to have all of two sex-related convictions which is about average for MSOP HosPrisoners (as opposed to Dennis Benson's false statements about an "average of 16 victims" is nonsense, not true, and I directly challenge DHS to prove this lie!

Dr. Tom Alberg (who I have a great deal of respect) recommended that Martinez be committed as Mentally Ill & Dangerous (MID) rather than as an SDP and/or SPP as he believed Martinez was mentally ill and that bipolar disorder may play a role.

The HosPrisoner was committed under the de facto life sentences as Ramsey County saw the chance to incapacitate a criminal they didn't want walking the streets, and knew that an MID commitment wasn't likely to stick until the MSOP completion criteria: Toe Tag in Morgue. Here is a key quote, which there are hundreds, if not 1000's of similar quotes by appellate court judges in our state as I have read (several times over) EVERY SDP/SPP appeal that there is in Minnesota:

Despite this evidence of some improvement, all five of the doctors whose opinions were considered by the court following the final commitment hearing believed that appellant continues to be dangerous to others.

These statements clearly show that "Dangerousness" is the criteria for this commitment, and all commitments stretching back past Linehan. The appellate court judges are apparently oblivious to the origins of these civil commitment laws, and of the nature and purpose. They must not have even read Hendricks or Crane, as they would understand that dangerousness isn't enough to commit.

Dr. Thomas Alberg had the raw courage and the professional ethics to opine in this case that despite having been committed, HosPrisoner Martinez' positive response to medications had effected sufficient recovery in Dr. Alberg's mind, that the HosPrisoner did not now meet the same commitment criteria as he had a few months earlier before the medications were straightened out. No, the bell had been rung, and the Courts were not going to unring it. They would rather have a criminal incapacitated and stuffed into the McTreatment Puntive Preventive Detention than to simply commit this man as MID and actually treat him.

Dr. Peter Meyer's showed some real insight into this HosPrisoner's pathology with his statement:

Dr. Peter Meyers, Psy.D., L.P., opined that appellant’s mental illness and dangerousness to others could be better understood as arising from appellant’s bipolar disorder than from appellant’s sexual deviancy. Dr. Meyers’ report did not specify whether the author was of the opinion that appellant continues to meet the requirements to be committed as an SDP/SPP.

Conversely, a state doctor, Michael Harlow, showed why the state selected him in this case with his statement which shows the state doctors will make anything up (and get away with it) all in the war cry of Public Safety and because the HosPrisoner is "dangerous", and "Politically Ill":

Dr. Michael Harlow, M.D., J.D., concluded that appellant’s "violence is generated by his high level of sexual dysfunction, most notably chaotic sexual psychopathy, personality disorders, and chemical dependency issues." Dr. Harlow, who had evaluated appellant during his initial commitment as MI&D, believed that appellant does not meet the statutory criteria to be committed as MI&D.

This conclusion is rubbish, as any experienced SVP evaluator will tell you as well.

Despite Martinez being mentally ill and his criminal and violent behaviors being non-sexual in nature, state doctor Harlow won't sign off on an MID commitment, not because that is not the best thing for HosPrisoner Martinez, but because Harlow's employer wants a different outcome, and Doctor Harlow will sentence a man into an abuse factory for the rest of his life where "Treatment" is a joke even among the Treatment Teams within the MSOP. Even the staff know it's a facade.


This court’s deference on factual issuesrecognizes that the district court is in the best position to assess and weigh the credibility of the witnesses.
See In re Commitment of Navratil, 799 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that this court defers to "the district court’s opportunity to judge witness credibility"), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2011).

Compare that statement, which means the HosPrisoner stays committed because the Judges respect what the Judge decided below at the District Court, with this Minnesota Court of Appeals decision:

In this case, the HosPrisoner had been determined by the District Court to not meet SDP or SPP commitment criteria and so the State appealed, and this DEFERENCE to the District Court went right out the window. MN Justice!

More ignorance or deliberate misstaements of MN law from our paid appellate judges:

Appellant also argues on appeal that he should have been committed as MI&D rather than as an SDP/SPP. Appellant argues that commitment as MI&D is a less restrictive alternative. He does not explain why commitment as MI&D is "less restrictive" and cites to no authority that would support such an argument. Appellant’s brief merely asserts that he could also have been committed as MI&D and that such a commitment would be "less restrictive."

An assignment of error based upon "mere assertion" and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.
State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997). Appellant’s argument is based upon mere assertion and is not supported by argument or authority. Mere inspection does not reveal prejudicial error.1 Consideration of this issue has been waived by failure to adequately brief it. Id.

These 3 judges, between all 3 either do not know the extreme differences in status accorded MID vs SDP/SPP commitments in our state, or they do know but are lying about that knowledge. Either incompetant or perpetrating fraud on the public. What other option is there? Please comment and inform this Ex_HosPrisoner!

I offer an educational lesson pro bono to the Court: Read this:

Of course, the Bastions of Justice in their Flowing Black Majestic Robes have erected (pardon pun) an insurmountable barrier to HosPrisoner Martinez's hopes of ever being "Discharged" from this "Hospital" with their "Procedural Bars".


A final humiliation:

Appellant’s brief also notes that his criminal sexual conduct convictions are remote in time. It is unclear to us whether appellant is attempting to argue that the convictions are too remote to support a commitment as an SDP/SPP. The brief does not directly make such an argument, nor does it cite to any authority that would support such an argument. Accordingly, this argument has also been waived.2 See id.

HosPrisoner Martinez' sex offenses occurred in 1977 and 1983. This HosPrisoner has no allegations of a sexual nature since 1983 that I can see referenced in this document. These offesnse are far too remote in time to comport with the Constitution or relevant case law outside of the illegal, unconstitutional "case law" that has arisen in Minnesota.

Another "Procedural Bar"--another illegal and unconstitutional sexual civil commitment.

Does this mean the MSOP is Now Serving 673 with their McTreatment??

Exhibit 3:

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: James Irvin Rigenhagen.
Affirmed. Judge Gary L. Crippen.*
Crow Wing County District Court, Hon. David J. Teneyck.

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.
A cursory reading clearly shows me I will need much more additional information to speak with authority as to this appellant's legal claims, but I can say for certainty that the argument he raised which should automatically invalidate his commitment under both SDP/SPP is below, which the Court of Appeals sidestepped deciding due one of many unjust "Procedural Bars", which are nothing more than Court-Speak for allowing innocent people to be wrongfully convicted and stay wrongfully convicted until they die; and, Court-Speak for guilty people, who despite being guilty, had their rights violated along the way to the guilt plea/verdict.

The concepts of Procedural Bars to keep judges from working a little harder has to be revisited along with this outdated concept that Judges are entitled to immunity when there can be a showing made that these Judges are violating the State and/or Federal Constitutions and are not applying clearly established US Supreme Court Precedents, which control, in these Minnesota SDP/SPP sexual civil  commitment cases. See this play below:

Finally, appellant argues that MSOP has failed to accomplish its goal of providing effective treatment for rehabilitating the civilly committed. But appellant did not make
this argument to the district court, and an appellate court "must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it."
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted). Because appellant did not argue MSOP’s ineffectiveness to the district court, we do not consider the issue on appeal. [Emphasis added-TWE] Injustice!

Appellant argues that (1) his commitment as an SDP and SPP was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; (2) MSOP was not the least restrictive treatment alternative; and (3) MSOP has failed to accomplish its goal of providing effective treatment for rehabilitating the civilly committed.

Having now reviewed the case in its entirety, my conclusion based on this limited information is that Mr. Rigenhagen may in fact be a prime candidate for Preventive Detention, but my argument would be that the MSOP is not an appropriate placement due to numerous constitutional reasons.

Affirmed, and the Manifest Injustice and Judicial Nullification Rolls On Unabated & Uninterrupted

Here is a link to the Brainerd Dispatch's coverage:

No comments:

Post a Comment